Discussing the recent attempt by bars to circumvent the smoking ban in Minnesota by exploiting a loophole allowing actors to smoke on stage, James Lileks notes:

But the underlying issue is amusing, too: if the legislators want to cinch the loophole shut, this means the state will regulate not only the content of a theatrical performance but the definition of a theatrical performance.

In the olden times, of course, everyone knew what a play was, and what it wasn’t. People standing on a stage thee-and-thouing to a seated audience: a play. People milling saying anything that came into their heads: not a play. But having redefined theater to mean anything its practitioners wish it to be, we accept with shrugs the idea of a spontaneous plotless event as theater. And now the state has to say it’s not. Moreover, the state will base its decision on the intentions of the play’s author. Heck of a precedent.

Delightful, and yes indeedy, it looks like Tom Huntley will be delighted to be thrown into that briar patch.

Labels: Freedom, smoking

As many of you now, we don't watch television. However, I do work out and every once in a while I pay attention to the TV. Sometimes it's worth it, sometimes not.

This morning was worth it. Much of the mainstream media (MSM) focuses on most anything that portrays our soldiers in a bad light, ignoring all the good they have done. Today's story, on ESPN, was about Nick Madaras, an Army PFC, who was killed in Iraq in September of 2006. His death was a very sad event but his zest for life will continue in his hometown of Wilton, Connecticut and all over soccer fields in Iraq.

See, Nick was a gung-ho soccer player from his youth. He played soccer, he refereed soccer, he coached soccer - he LOVED soccer. Summer, 2006, when home on leave, he'd expressed a desire to get soccer balls to Iraqi kids upon his return there. Nick didn't know but his legacy began with his obituary when his dad had mentioned Nick's desire to collect soccer balls for Iraqi kids.

A Korean Vet, Ken Dartly, saw the comment, tracked down the parents and set up a "goal" outside an American Legion post to collect soccer balls from residents. Their aim was 50 or so. Well 1500+ soccer balls later, PFC Nick Madaras has his name in indelible marker on every soccer ball that his home town has shipped to Iraq.

The US Army distributes the balls to kids who rush towards the American trucks shouting, "The Americans are here. The Americans are here!!" (Don't see that on the news.) Now all over lots in Iraq, PFC Nick Madaras' dream has come true. Even the girls were given soccer balls.

Thank you to Nick's family for their sacrifice, the Wilton American Legion and all those who contributed to this terrific project. This is what Americans do.

Labels: Freedom, US Soldiers

Yesterday, Friday, while working out, I had the chance to watch Mrs. Clinton on the Tyra Banks talk show. What I saw greatly concerns me.

First, the film footage showing Mrs. Clinton from a little girl to her present position is quite well done. That in itself is fine, a very good piece of marketing. It's the "care" that bothers me. She grew up in a privileged family and was "encouraged to do" whatever she could to succeed. She has by all measurements. The question is, what does she want for other women or is she in this solely for herself? Has her quest become an end unto itself, or can she actually lead?

Secondly, Mrs. Clinton has an uncanny way of avoiding eye contact. Just watch her. She rarely looks eye-to-eye with anyone talking to her. Tara Banks got some contact but otherwise, Mrs. Clinton's hands were flying all over the place, her eyes going up, sideways, down but not making contact with the camera, the audience or Ms. Banks. Why can't she look people in the eye? Is it because she knows she's using people? women in particular? Is she really unsure of what she thinks she can do?

I lived through all the feminist hype. I watched a good intention - to open doors for women - become a stomping ground for the loudest and brashest of females. I watched education being taken over by people with a "social justice" game plan, another name for socialism.

Do women understand if this woman gets in the White House or anywhere else in power, she is not for them, she is for herself? Mrs. Clinton is a socialist's socialist - look at her goals:

1 - Government run healthcare for all. But no one in America is denied healthcare, it's health insurance where the discrepancy exists;
2 - Mandatory, government sponsored schooling for the children. Parents, it's your three-year-olds who will be subjected to the socialist mindset. What influence you might still have, will be removed. Homeschoolers may be stopped.
3 - Raise taxes and provide more money for her projects and education. Unfortunately, we've learned more money is not the answer to our education woes (standards and curriculum are). Washington DC spends around $14,000/pupil yet is failing most students in the sense that they are not learning what they need to learn; Mpls spends about $11,000, to what end?
4 - If you think you have it financially tough now, wait until the government does it all for you.

Mrs. Clinton is either ignoring or has little clue of the real threats to our society. Maybe she thinks she can be nicey nice and in return the people who want all of us (including Mrs. Clinton) to submit to their belief system or be murdered will be nice, too.

Tyra's audience appeared awed by Mrs. Clinton. Ladies, wake up. When a politician says she/he will solve all your concerns, you can bet they will take away your rights and freedoms in the process. While it is tempting to want someone else to "fix" our problems, the basic belief of the Founders was that people were smart enough to solve their own. Ladies, Mrs. Clinton will remove any options that still exist. This is not a good sign.

Labels: Feminists, Freedom

My colleague and friend Dick Andzenge has written a column for today's St. Cloud Times that takes dead-aim at the affront to free speech and educational excellence that has been the university's response to the swastikas. He politely refers to us as a unique institution, in ways that we might lead us to prefer to be more common:

First, I see a one-dimensional approach to diversity. When some people at St. Cloud State talk of prejudice, discrimination, insensitivity and related hostility, they assume that only white, Christian, heterosexual men are capable of these sentiments. To these people, diversity is the exclusive empowerment and increased opportunity for non-whites, non-Christians, non-males and non-heterosexuals.

To satisfy this approach, the university has accommodated a curriculum that differs from traditional Western academic curriculum.

Many students do not know much about Western concepts such as rationalism, enlightenment and the industrial revolution and their connections to modernity.

On the other hand, multiple courses are offered in democratic citizenship without a clear identification of its theoretical, historical, substantive content and academic value. Students are required to take sensitivity training courses, all of which focus largely on passive accommodation of protected groups.

Long time readers of SCSU Scholars are aware of the sensitivity training, of democratic citizenship and its descendants, of mandatory diversity training and the use of diversity in "strategic planning" to mean anything other than permitting students to hear fully the western canon. Will anyone admit this is a failure? No -- and Dick argues that someone should ask why.

The second approach I find unique at St. Cloud State is the focus on problem identification without acknowledgment of successes in dealing with those problems. Evaluating efforts to solve problems enables us to see which efforts work and which ones do not work. Complaints should be fully investigated, findings and actions taken by the university or the community made public.

A third unique issue at St. Cloud State is the tendency to allow dealing with complaints to become the major agenda of the university.

One would have expected that because the previous president introduced so many changes, the institution would be able to put those problems behind and allow the new president to focus on the real mission for the university.

Indeed, when current President Earl Potter arrived, I had hoped that there would be focus on academics; someone reported to me that in a meeting with local leaders this president wondered whether or not the university was in the education business or the diversity business. Perhaps others were worried about the answer he might find...

That these issues have surfaced at this moment suggests a persistent tendency to make sure that bigotry continues to be the university's main agenda.

The most recent incident, within a campus dormitory after students had left for semester break, might raise some question whether it is a group of jackals from off-campus or -- could it be? -- someone interested in making sure which business we stay in? Surely you'll say I'm just being paranoid, engaged in fantasy. And I hope you're right. Oh, Kerri Dunn says hi, and don't think it can't happen here. It did.

Based on the above, I suggest the president require a shared and inclusive definition of harassment, discrimination and abuse-related conduct to which everyone is held accountable.

I suggest further that complaints, allegations and claims are reported as such rather than as facts. Such complaints should be handed to the police for careful investigation and appropriate criminal justice interventions.

I've stated on a campus discussion email list that these acts are acts of vandalism first and foremost. They can be prosecuted that way. Because they also invade private spaces, they are criminal trespass. But the university has labeled all these acts hate crimes, which Dick finds objectionable.

Referring to anonymous bathroom graffiti as a hate crime, rather than juvenile acts of vandalism, is overreacting, which makes a mockery of real acts of hate that might occur.

Another colleague of mine shared with me a letter sent to President Potter. It makes the point of what we are setting up when we promise so much more than we can actually deliver, in a free, pluralistic society:

... I think your administration does a disservice to our students and our community when it simplifies a complicated issue, and when it assumes that all students will have the same reaction to these incidents. I read a comment of yours that some students are now afraid to be at SCSU and are thinking of leaving the university. But where will they go? Which university in this country can promise a better environment, or guarantee that similar incidents will never happen there? Not one. And, while I understand and genuinely sympathize with those students [who express hurt and fear --kb], legally their reaction has to be "reasonable." The entity that decides whether a victim's fear is reasonable is the jury, but only after all of the evidence is presented. Unless we want to be judge, jury, and executioner, we should not jump to conclusions that may or may not be supported by the actual evidence.

I think it is important for our students to understand how the law works and how the first amendment works because, ultimately, these will be used to decide the fate of the perpetrator. For all of the outrage being expressed now, how will you and the university community react if the perpetrator's conduct is adjudicated to be legally protected speech? Will you condemn the first amendment in equally harsh terms, because it rendered a result with which our community must disagree? Will you backtrack and explain that the law was always a part of the (non-existent) discourse as these events unfolded on our campus? Will you tell our students that their disappointment in the court's finding is understandable, and that you, too, are disappointed? I would hate to see our students set up for a fall -- waiting for the system to come down hard on this person who has so grievously injured our community, only to find him/her exonerated?

President Potter announced two weeks ago that there will be a forum "that will invite broad perspectives on characterizing and dealing with hate crimes, as well as provide support and information about resources to help those in our community who are feeling threatened or intimidated." There has so far been no forum planned on free speech, but never has one been more needed. To both of my colleagues, bravo.

Labels: Freedom, higher education, SCSU

Or," Give 'em hell, Ma!" If you go to the website, you can see photos.

I could try to rewrite this, but the quote from the Illinois Families United web page, referenced above says it all:

Bev Perlson wanted to give her son a special gift for his birthday - He is in Afghanistan. She decided to show him how much she supported his mission - defending and protecting America. Bev decided to take a stand in front of the Cannon Office building that houses Rep. Nancy Pelosi. Bev chose to play patriotic music and carry signs that say "I'm proud of my son" and "Fund the Troops". Bev arranged for a permit for the corner and during the week of December 10- 14 and from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm she proudly showed her colors each day! Families United board members stopped by on Tuesday and Wednesday and stood beside her. We were honored to sing Happy Birthday to John!(Note - no media attention was given!)

Code Pink decided to appear but as usual, they didn't have their facts straight. The diary covers events through Wednesday. Subsequent posts will be written this weekend.

It would be nice if our media would bother to look at the real reasons for our soldiers fighting versus sticking to their groupthink mindset and ignoring the real heroes of this daunting challenge. Bev and her friends do "get it" but too many politicians and Americans are still playing ostrich. Our "peace" crowd opposes the very people (our soldiers) who protect their right to protest. The peace crowd refuses to acknowledge they could not do what they do in any nation that is fighting us. They do not realize how their actions aid those who want to destroy freedom.

Some of our citizens really understand the threat to us, our children, our grandchildren and freedom in general. Thank goodness they do.

Labels: Freedom, US Soldiers

If you recall the 2004 election, there were many complaints by Democrats of how the Republicans cheated. That's because the Dems lost. In 2006, the Dems won big time. Prior to the election, there were cries of voter fraud, etc. Well, the Dems won - never heard another word, did we.

ACORN, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, members completed and filed more than 1,800 fictitious voter-registration cards during a 2006 registration drive in King and Pierce counties in the state of Washington. Seven were accused of voter fraud, three admitted guilt, one has been sentenced.

Did you see this on the evening news? No, I didn't think so.

Labels: elections, Freedom, Media

Most people who have any connection with education institutions are aware that grade inflation is a topic of discussion. Resolving the issue is not. After getting inflated grades in high school and earlier, students enter universities believing they are very bright and entitled to high grades there, too. The author of this article in The Economist attributes inflated grades at the college level to a reaction to time pressures on professors and teaching assistants. Since the students all think they are very bright (and some are) they question any grade not an "A." As the author implies, it is just easier to give a high grade than spend the time and hassle defending a legitimate lower grade. However, there is far more to the problem than avoiding hassles.

Who loses?
First, the student loses because he/she believes that a high grade means they have learned something. Not necessarily so - too often grades are "given" vs "earned." The student has a poor sense of how much talent and effort it takes to be an "A" student, one that performs significantly above average. He hits the non-academic world and cannot understand why he is not rated the best employee since the 1800's.

The parents lose because they have been given an over-valued assessment of their Johnny or Susie. They believe their kid is able to take on anything because their grades are really high. Then Johnny or Susie returns home because they cannot compete in or cope with the real world. Parents also lose because they are paying taxes to support a system that in many instances does not teach what students need to succeed. Our system today has few repercussions for poor performance or bad behavior. The real world does not have "do-overs" on exams.

Employers lose because they think they are hiring someone with certain knowledge, responsibility and decent work ethics. Instead they get new employees who are often lazy, incompetent, and lacking in the ability to work well with others, yet have an over-inflated perception of themselves.

Our nation loses because these students have not been taught to think critically, do not know basic facts on which to base arguments, and have low personal standards for such basic habits as consistently showing up for work on time. Students from other nations often know more and work harder than US educated students.

We are in a global economy whether we like it or not. The attitude towards academics on most of the planet is to learn everything one can. This means learning the basic foundations of math, science, and real history (not just the guilt-driven issues of the West). My foreign students from Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe and South America have drive and reasonable expectations. Our last 40 years of coddling US students, making excuses for aberrant behavior and grade inflation have resulted in far too many "graduates" knowing less, expecting more, and running home to mom and dad when things do not work.

As always, there are exceptions but my contacts in industry are very, very concerned about the quality of college graduates today. Since this post is getting long, I will document suggestions separately.

Labels: Freedom, higher education

Tonight was the premier opening of the documentary film, Indoctrinate U brought to the Twin CIties by the Minnesota Association of Scholars. Producer, Thor Halvorssen and Director, Evan Maloney joined 65 supporters for a dinner at McNamara Alumni Center at the University of Minnesota. We learned the background of the movie, what it took to get it to its current state, and future plans.

Minneapolis-St. Paul is the first location to offer multiple showings of the film. You can see it at the Oak Street Cinema near the U of MN campus. Times are as follows:
Saturday/Sunday 7:15, with a 5:15 Matinee each day;
Monday through Thursday 7:15 and 9:15, with 5:15 Matinees Tuesday & Wednesday

If you are a college student, a parent with college students, a future college student, this movie is a must see. What has happened since the 1960's on our campuses is a disgrace, a waste of taxpayer money, but most importantly, a defeat for the open exchange of ideas. Our nation has thrived on the exchange of ideas, different opinions, and the right to express them. Forcing students to adhere to a one-sided philosophy is bad for all.

Labels: education, Freedom

The new tactic of campus officials in suppressing free speech seems to be the declaration that the annoying speaker is a threat to the campus and needs mental screening and evaluation. The latest example happens at Valdosta (GA) State, where T. Hayden Barnes, a student with strong environmental views, had the temerity to criticize an administrative decision to build new parking garages.

On April 13, Barnes posted a collage of pictures on his Facebook.com page, including pictures of [VSU President Ronald M.] Zaccari, a parking deck, a bulldozer excavating trees, a flattened globe marked by a tire tread, automobile exhaust, a gas mask, an asthma inhaler, a public bus underneath the “not allowed” symbol, United States currency, and a photocopy of the Climate Change Statement of the American College & University Presidents’ Climate Commitment. The collage was also marked with a variety of captions, including “No Blood for Oil,” “More Smog,” “Bus system that might have been,” “Climate change statement from President Zaccari,” and “S.A.V.E.—Zaccari Memorial Parking Garage,” a sarcastic reference to concerns he says Zaccari had expressed in a meeting about his “legacy” as president of VSU.

Barnes also penned a letter to the editor of the VSU student paper about the proposed parking deck plans on April 19 and wrote to Zaccari on April 26 to ask for an exemption from the mandatory student fee designated for funding the parking garage construction.

According to VSU, Barnes also “posted a link on his website page to an article discussing the massacre at Virginia Tech”; linked to an advertisement for a film competition sponsored by commercial photography site Webshots.com, which featured the tagline “Shoot it. Upload it. Get famous. Project Spotlight is looking for the next big thing. Are you it?”; and commented on his website that he was “cleaning out and rearranging his room and thus, his mind, or so he hopes.”

On May 7, Barnes found a notice of administrative withdrawal from Zaccari underneath his dormitory door. The notice informed Barnes that “as a result of recent activities directed towards me by you, included [sic] but not limited to the attached threatening document [the Facebook collage], you are considered to present a clear and present danger to this campus.”

FIRE has stored the Facebook page which looks pretty innocuous. I'm going to guess that Barnes committed the same 'crime' as Troy Scheffler did -- he mentioned Virginia Tech without denouncing guns. Unlike Scheffler, Barnes actually went ahead and got his required psychiatric evaluation and submitted it to the university, which is now dragging its feet on reinstating the student to campus. All about a parking garage.

Pres. Zaccari deserves some scorn for his poor handling of this situation. But I want to call attention to this increased use of psychiatric screening as a retaliation for speech administrators don't like. Here's a case from Regent University, a private school that expelled a student for posting an obscene picture of the school's president. These three cases within the last six months point up a disturbing new trend. All the more reason for you to join us for Indoctrinate U this weekend at the Oak Street Cinema in Minneapolis!

Labels: Freedom, higher education

After waiting a couple of days, all I can say is "How sad, how very sad." Michael Murphy, a Navy Seal, lost is life in Afghanistan after his group got ambushed. He exposed his position when calling for help; sustained a number of wounds but relayed his group's position to headquarters. Before any could be rescued, Michael died along with other Seals that day, a low for Seals, but also a riveting memory told very well by Marcus Lattrell in his book, "Lone Surviver."

We still read and hear of heroes - unfortunately, not on the so-called news channels. Their anti-military bias has tarnished their views to the point where a fact challenged would-be reporter gets more attention than a true hero, one who really deserves honor and respect from the American public.

On October 22, President Bush presented the Medal of Honor to Michael's parents. We are indeed fortunate that we still have young men and women who understand honor, country, valor, truth, and freedom - without the soldier, our freedoms are gone.

Thank you Mr. and Mrs. Murphy for raising such a fine young man. We are indebted to you and his memory as well as others who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom.

Labels: Freedom, US Soldiers

A few months ago Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp submitted articles describing supposed ugly behavior of American soldiers to the left-leaning New Republic Magazine (TNR). The descriptions reported were absurd to anyone who has a clue about the caliber of our military. Of course, the left is not interested in supporting our military but will eagerly publish anything that is critical, but check facts? Nah. Writers in the blogosphere took one look at the articles and immediately, red flags appeared.

Further research indicated that TNR had done minimal fact checking and ignored the full disclosure practice of identifying relationships with staff. Turns out at the time of Mr. Beauchamp's written submissions, his wife worked at The New Republic.

Over the past 10 weeks, TNR editors have refused to admit their errors, have pulled the articles, and entered the "hide in the cave" zone. Appears they want people to forget their lack of editorial responsibility. TNR accused the Army of stonewalling - yet it's TNR who has been stonewalling the truth. Our Army did its investigation and concluded the stories were false.

Yesterday, Drudge got copies of the Army's investigation and conversations between the TNR edictors and Mr. Beauchamp who now wants the whole thing to go away - I wonder why??? The Drudge documents are now gone but can be accessed through Michelle Malkin's website.

Mr. Beauchamp is the product of an education system that tells everyone they're special without providing grounding in honesty, integrity, and personal responsibility. Because Beauchamp had access to a left-leaning, anti-Bush and anti-US military magazine, by his own admission, he submitted articles based on fantasy and gross extrapolation of facts (one article appears to be an based on the actions of German soldiers in Afghanistan a couple of years ago). He dreamed about being another Hemingway.

When we teach children that everything and anything goes, and they are not accountable for what they say and do, they develop a very warped idea of life and will have major difficulties living on their own. Mr. Beauchamp got caught. Hopefully he'll learn from this experience. On the other hand, TNR does not appear to have learned anything from this experience. A once decent left of center magazine has shown its inability to deal with facts that do not support thier bias, again.

Labels: education, Freedom, soldiers

Tonight we attended the Fall Briefing of the Center of the American Experiment. The keynote speaker was William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard magazine. The event was well attended and the audience was appreciative of the insights Kristol provided. Main points are summarized below.

He believes recent history will be divided into three earas: 1932-1968, the liberal era; 1968-2004; 2004 forward, an era of erratic, unpredictable events that will last at least another generation.

As for current problems, he believes Social Security can be fixed. The big problem is Medicare. Mr. Kristol believes the generations after the baby-boomers will solve the issue because they will have to. His impression of boomers is not very positive. As an aside, a number of books are starting to address the irresponsibility of boomers and their parents. Agree or not agree, Diana Wests's latest book The Death of the Grown-UP appears to dovetail with Kristol's impression of boomers (of which he is one). Countering this somewhat negative view is Kristol's experience with the majors, lieutenant colonels and colonels of the American military who are currently leading the surge and successful turnaround in Iraq. Mr. Kristol's opinion of these young leaders is very high. He sees them as becoming our needed strong leaders in the years ahead.

He also reminded us of the enormous strides Indians and Chinese have made over the past 35 years. Hundreds of millions of people in both nations have been able to experience a decent life, a prediction no one would have made a few decades ago. How were so many people able to improve their lives? Via free-market ideas and US international policies. Closely coupled with the economics side is the role the US has played since WWII in preventing a major war. We do take so much freedom and safety for granted - it's our military that provides freedom and safety, not just for us but billions on the planet.

Regarding the Bush administration - he believes it deserves credit for keeping us free from another attack and over all, much safer than anyone would have predicted on 9/12/2001 and history will treat Mr. Bush well. Kristol does fault the Bush administration for its inability to get across to the American people the severity of the threats to freedom everywhere posed by our enemy. Europe is still in denial - they simply refuse to take the threats against their societies seriously.

Iran's threats are ignored by Europe and Mr. Kristol is concerned that we are ignoring what the Iranians are doing to our soldiers - we need to become more tough in this arena.

Overall, an informative evening.

John Bolton will be the guest speaker for the Center's spring dinner.

Labels: Freedom, politics

On Saturday, King invited me to co-host his radio show, "The Final Hour" on AM 1280. Our guest for the day was Ken Doyle, president of the Minnesota Association of Scholars. The conversation for the first hour centered on the documentary, "Indoctrinate U" which is coming to the Oak Street Cinema in the Twin Cities beginning this Friday, October 26, and running through Thursday, November 1.

The focus of the documentary is the biased environment so many college and university students experience when they attempt to challenge college speech codes, inconsistent application of university rules and regulations, or disagree with the one-sidedness of some professors, even if the professor is wrong. A documentary preview and related events are linked here.

Detailed information on the show times can be found here.

We hope all interested in higher education, instructors, taxpayers, students, government officials, and others will attend a showing. Our nation has thrived because of its culture of open discussion and honest debate. Denying future generations the environment to challenge without fear of being penalized in their grades, is just wrong.

Labels: Freedom, higher education

This enormous success will get little if any coverage in the mainstream media (MSM). However, this is crucial. My young Iraqi friend has emphasized multiple times that Iraqis don't care a whole lot about which interpretation of Islam is "the" interpretation.

What is critical is this: No one, absolutely no one who lives in a totalitarian society can even consider this "freedom" thing when under the heel of totalitarian rule (religion, tribe, generic thug, etc.). In a dictatorial environment, one spends one's time trying to survive, avoid being accused of something they never did and avoid real torture. Freedom is a luxury only available when security and safety and the rule of law are mostly in place.

Americans, with the surge, gave the Iraqis a chance. Iraqis are taking advantage of the recent stability unknown previously (Saddam was not safe). This breakthrough is one of many that have occurred in the past two months. It is a gross pity these achievements are not headlined everywhere.

For those who went through any business program, there is a concept called Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. In summary, once basic physical needs have been met, safety and security are required before anything else can be achieved. People need basics first - the Iraqis discovered this and realized their success was possible and the AQI bullies brought in from outside Iraq were not the way to go. The Iraqis are moving forward.

Labels: Freedom

I've never been big on anniversaries (fortunately, my husband is forgiving) so I missed noting that it has been just over a year since King put up my first post. He was generous enough to invite me to blog with him and I have ever since. Thanks, King.

And thanks to all you readers for your comments, here on the blog and in person when our paths have crossed.

One of my friends is from Burma. He/she fled Burma after demonstrations a number of years ago. Her/his life was in jeopardy. Those of you who have followed the latest protests know that all communications outside the country have been blocked, shut down. We take this freedom to express opinions for granted. King gave me an opportunity to write for an audience. It has been great!

Labels: Freedom

As noted in this earlier post, the documentary, Indoctrinate U, will be coming to Minneapolis for a week, October 26-November 1.

The Minnesota Assocation of Scholars (of which King and I are members and on the board) along with the Tocqueville Center at the U of M will be sponsoring a Meet-the-Producer (Thor Halverson) and Director (Evan Coyne Maloney) Gala dinner/film opening night, October 26 at 5:30 PM. Tickets for this unique opportunity are $50 per person and can be ordered by calling 612.624.5341.

The dinner will be served in the U of M McNamara Center.

All of us contribute to the funding of colleges and universities. An unfortunate morphing has taken place over the last 35+ years, a shift to the left. This film documents much of this shift. As with most tough environments, knowing what one is going to face ahead of time helps one deal with difficult positions. If you or your friends have students in college or about to attend, this documentary is a "must see."

To see reviews, click here.

Labels: Freedom, higher education

Agreed, we should be happy that Costa Rica has voted to join CAFTA and the world of free trade, but this shouldn't be a huge surprise. Costa Rica has long been a country more free than many of its neighbors and, unlike Dani Rodrik's El Salvador story, it has in fact grown. Looking at The World Economy we find that after Costa Rican per capita GDP grew only 0.8% per year on average between 1920 and 1950, growth accelerated to 2.3% per year from 1950 to 2000. (El Salvador grew only 1.2% per year in the last half-century.) Thus living standards in Costa Rica have doubled every 30 years. If Bob Lawson wants an example to counter El Salvador ...

... a nation with a history of low economic freedom and political stability with little credibility in the eyes of domestic and foreign investors. It has only recently begun to stabilize and improve its economic institutions. I would not expect it to grow quickly immediately. These things take time. I would predict things to improve only after some degree of credibility is earned. In El Salvador's case, this could take a long time.

...he could do a lot worse than to pick Costa Rica.

Labels: economics, Freedom

Indoctrinate U, the controversial new documentary of efforts across the US that force students to accept politically correct ideas or risk humiliation in class, even failing grades, is coming to the Twin Cities.

The location is the Oak Street Cinema, (612.331.3134) Oak Street at Washington, East Edge of UM Minneapolis Campus.

Dates and show times (all times PM):
Fri. Oct 26, 7:15
Sat/Sun Oct 27, 28 5:15, 7:15
Mon Oct. 29 7:15, 9:16
Tues, Wed., Oct 30, 31 5:15, 7:15, 9:15
Thurs., Nov 1 7:15, 9:15

Cost: Matinees (5:15) Adults $6, Students $4
Evenings Adults $8, Students $5

Set aside a date. More posts to come.

Labels: Freedom, higher education

A group of students on campus organizes themselves as "Friends for Life", with the purpose of educating students about the costs of abortion. They are able to obtain funding towards that mission and have inserts they wish to place in the campus newspaper, and so they approach the newspaper to buy the right to include them. The inserts were refused last year and again this year. The story next is unedited except to remove the name of the editor at the newspaper, and was mailed to me by David Brix, who leads Friends for Life. In his words:

In the past, the group had been granted permission by the paper and the literature was run with no complications. However, the next year the very same insert was rejected with no reasons given by the paper. Answers as to why were refused to FFL members despite the fact that FFL is a paying client of The Chronicle.

This year FFL tried again, but with a new insert; however, that too was rejected. The reason the insert was rejected was because it was considered too graphic for a college audience. The problem with the denial is the inconsistency of The Chronicle. On Thursday September 20, the paper had run an insert of a provocative looking underwear model in volume 84 number 5. Many found this image to be graphic and offensive; but, it was considered acceptable for college students to see.

Both images are graphic. To be sure you agree to see them, I've uploaded them separately and provide a link to the Armani Exchange and the Human Life Alliance (HLA) photos. I have copies of both of the HLA inserts that were rejected, as well as the Armani insert.

Brix also relates an exchange with an editor (whose name and phone number I am redacting, I'll explain why in a moment):

Last Thursday I brought the HLA insert down to the Chronicle office and gave it to [an editor]. She told me that usually anything is appropriate but they have to take a look at political based ads. She told me she would have to check with the editor. She called me back that afternoon and left me this voice mail:

“Hi David, this is [redacted] from the University Chronicle…a…replying about the inserts for Friends for Life. I showed it to our editor and we are not going to be able to run this, some of the pictures are just too graphic and… that’s just kind of how…just kind of…how we do things. So if you have any questions please feel free to call me back the number here is 320-308-nnnn. Thanks, bye”.

Now go back and look at the pictures. The picture the editor refused is certainly graphic. It is meant to provoke, to raise one's emotions, in order to make a political point. The other picture, the Armani picture, is meant to provoke, to raise one's emotions, to make a commercial point. Ask yourself: Which kind of provocative speech is the First Amendment intended to protect?

Understand too, that nobody -- not the Friends for Life group, nor me -- would ask the Chronicle to censor the Armani ad.

The Chronicle has of course run ads before that have been provocative and political. It ran a scurrilous article attacking a member of the faculty and former dean, promised to investigate its failure to research it properly, and then ran away from the research when it was apparent the paper would end up not looking good. It is not beyond running a cartoon praising a male Homecoming Queen. The paper once included an insert from a person who wanted to provoke a reaction by denying the Holocaust. Perhaps that experience so affected the paper and its adviser that now they are checking anything not clearly commercial for content. Yet when it makes a point that might be politically correct, like supporting the Homecoming Queen, or commercially expedient, like taking money for a commercial ad, they aren't checking. Notice again what Brix said:

She told me that usually anything is appropriate but they have to take a look at political based ads. She told me she would have to check with the editor.

This is inimical to a free press, and it is inimical to a campus newspaper in a university (and advised by a department) that trumpets its commitment to the First Amendment.

I do not blame that particular editor for the rejection of the HLA ad -- which is why I do not want to name her or give out a phone number. And turnover at a campus newspaper is quite high, of course, since students graduate, so the current staff cannot be held responsible for any of the other problems I've named for the Chronicle. You have to look for the one constant.

Labels: Freedom, higher education, SCSU

Come a little closer, please, and listen.

This is really annoying.

The sign of broadening resistance to globalization came in a new Wall Street Journal-NBC News Poll that showed a fraying of Republican Party orthodoxy on the economy. While 60% of respondents said they want the next president and Congress to continue cutting taxes, 32% said it's time for some tax increases on the wealthiest Americans to reduce the budget deficit and pay for health care.

Six in 10 Republicans in the poll agreed with a statement that free trade has been bad for the U.S. and said they would agree with a Republican candidate who favored tougher regulations to limit foreign imports. That represents a challenge for Republican candidates who generally echo Mr. Bush's calls for continued trade expansion, and reflects a substantial shift in sentiment from eight years ago.

"It's a lot harder to sell the free-trade message to Republicans," said Republican pollster Neil Newhouse, who conducts the Journal/NBC poll with Democratic counterpart Peter Hart. The poll comes ahead of the Oct. 9 Republican presidential debate in Michigan sponsored by the Journal and the CNBC and MSNBC television networks.

Let us not forget that it was Bill Clinton who pushed through NAFTA, so it isn't like you can pull your usual stunt of saying "well, we're for protecting American jobs, but we'll not kill the economy like THOSE guys will!" It's that kind of signaling that eventually lead Clinton to make his famous WTO speech in Seattle in 1999, in which he undid seven years of good policy.

Lose this issue, and you lose a lot more than my support. (And I'm very serious about this; it's an issue I care about more than most of the ones that animate Republican activists.) Are you -- are we -- the party of freedom or are we not? Milton and Rose Friedman wrote ten years ago:

Few measures that we could take would do more to promote the cause of freedom at home and abroad than complete free trade. Instead of making grants to foreign governments in the name of economic aid--thereby promoting socialism--while at the same time imposing restrictions on the products they produce--thereby hindering free enterprise--we could assume a consistent and principled stance. We could say to the rest of the world: We believe in freedom and intend to practice it. We cannot force you to be free. But we can offer full cooperation on equal terms to all. Our market is open to you without tariffs or other restrictions. Sell here what you can and wish to. Buy whatever you can and wish to. In that way cooperation among individuals can be worldwide and free.

If you have any belief in the mission America has in Iraq and Afghanistan -- in putting examples of democracy and connectivity to the rest of the planet's market system in a part of the world where Islamofascists try to build barriers -- how can you then support barriers on Chinese toys or Korean semiconductors?

Yet in a post at Anti-Strib on what it means to be a conservative there was a statement "The area where conservatives support a large govt. role is national defense and international trade." (My emphasis.) When I asked what that was about, Tracy replies:

China, Japan and a few other countries have basically unfair advantages in the US market.

The US allowed the Japanese to destroy our domestic electronics industry.

Even our largest companies need the full support of the US government when dealing with other large countries.

I know I'm in the minority on this, but I see how other countries block our products.

Sadly, you're not, Tracy.

We're all for competition and the free market when two American companies are beating each other's brains in, but in comes Fujitsu and whoa! Get the cops!?!?

When Republicans have won in the post-Watergate world, the message has been "we're the freedom party; they're the forced-fairness party." Try not to screw that up, and you can win. If you can't even come up with that much vision, you will perish.

UPDATE (10/7): Ben Muse digs into the poll and finds that it only represents Republican voters deemed likely to vote in the primary. Not a representative sample, he says. But certainly containing the people having the candidates' ears...

Labels: Freedom, politics

My friend today told me that there is no word from family members in Burma/Myanmar. He did say the military junta was burning bodies, providing family members with a "token" of the murdered family member. As stated yesterday, she said far more have been murdered than the token 10 listed in the MSM.

As this report in National Review, via the London Times says, 1000s have been murdered and bodies are being dumped in a jungle. (You need to scroll down quite a way to find it.)

People, this is what dictators do - there are no courts, rights, freedom of speech. This is what happens when thugs grab power. Understand that in many parts of the Far East, monks are held in the highest esteem. To wantonly murder them shows what happens when thugs rule. We Americans have no clue, not a clue, as to how brutal and all-controlling totalitarian regimes can be.

Labels: Freedom

Not much has been covered on the Buddhist monk demonstrations for democracy in Myanmar. They took to the streets starting about a week ago. The military junta let them protest for a couple of days then started a major crack down.

Curfews have been instituted - anyone on the streets after dark are shot. If you need emergency medical treatment, you not only have your medical problem but you also risk disappearing if shot. Unlike the rights driven west, rights mean nothing in a thugacracy.

One of my friends is from Myanmar. The name will be omitted to protect him/her. However he/she has not been able to contact family members for a few days now. Internet access has been severely restricted; phone calls are monitored. My friend says there are far more murders than reported in the press - the military junta shoots people, then removes the bodies - no trace, no way for any international rights organization to document. Family members won't know the status of loved ones for years, perhaps, never.

He/she says he/she prays every morning, Buddhist prayers, for the family. I mentioned, we remember the family in our prayers.

Buddhists, Christians, Jews, even Hindus can find a way to pray for others without demanding submission to their respective belief system. Food for thought.

Labels: Freedom